Skip to main content

Differences in morphology and composition of skin and pulp cell walls from grapes (Vitis vinifera L.): technological implications

European Food Research and Technology volume 227, pages 223–231 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

The morphology and composition of skin and pulp cell walls of four premium red wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) varieties were studied to determine whether the technological differences observed in previous studies between the four different varieties during the winemaking process (especially, the anthocyanin extractability) could be partly explained by their respective cell wall compositions. Monastrell grapes showed the highest amount of cell wall material in their skins (55–57 mg cell wall/g skin), while Syrah showed the largest amount of cell wall material in the pulp (5.1 mg cell wall/g pulp). The highest percentage of galactose and cellulosic glucose in skin and pulp cell walls was also found in Monastrell grapes. The cell wall composition of Monastrell grapes, together with their morphology, suggests that the firmer pulp and skin are responsible for the difficulties this variety shows for anthocyanin extraction (extractability index varying from 37 to 60). As cell wall composition may be modulated by the action of enzymes, the activity of pectinmethylesterase, polygalacturonase, cellulase and α- and β-galactosidase was studied. No polygalacturonase and cellulase activity was found. The two galactosidases showed higher activity than pectinmethylesterase (25–290 units/g tissue versus 0.3–0.4 units/g tissue), especially in Cabernet Sauvignon grapes, although in Monastrell grapes α- and β-galactosidase activity was low, which may explain the large amount of galactose in Monastrell grapes cell wall.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Abbreviations

PG:

Polygalacturonase

PME:

Pectinmethylesterase

PL:

Pectinlyase

CWM:

Cell wall material

Cel-Glu:

Cellulosic glucose

UA:

Uronic acids

DM:

Degree of pectin methylation

DA:

Degree of pectin acetylation

References

  1. Barnavon L, Doco T, Terrier N, Ageorges A, Romieu C, Pellerin P (2000) Plant Physiol Biochem 38:289–300. doi:10.1016/S0981-9428(00)00749-X

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Romero-Cascales I, Ortega-Regules A, López-Roca J M, Fernández-Fernández JI, Gómez-Plaza E (2005) Am J Enol Vitic 56:212–219

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hrazdina G, Moskowitz A (1980) In Webb D (ed) Proceedings of the grape and wine centennial symposium, University of California, Davis, pp 45–253

  4. Romero-Cascales I, Fernádez-Fernández JI, López-Roca JM, Gómez-Plaza E (2005) Eur Food Res Technol 221:163–167. doi:10.1007/s00217-005-1144-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nunan KJ, Sims IM, Bacic A, Robinson SP (1998) Plant Physiol 118:783–792

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Huang XM, Huang HB, Wang HC (2005) Sci Hortic 104:249–263. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2004.09.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Batisse C, Buret M, Coulomb PJ (1996) J Agric Food Chem 44:453–457. doi:10.1021/jf950227r

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Saint-Cricq de Gaulejac N, Vivas N, Glories Y (1998) Rev Franç Oenol 173:22–25

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vidal S, Williams P, O’Neill MA, Pellerin P (2001) Carbohyd Polym 45:315–323. doi:10.1016/S0144-8617(00)00285-X

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Blakeney AB, Harris PJ, Henry RJ, Stone BA (1983) Carbohyd Res 113:291–299. doi:10.1016/0008-6215(83)88244-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Scott RW (1979) Anal Chem 51:936–941. doi:10.1021/ac50043a036

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Voragen AG, Schols HA, Pilnik W (1986) Food Hydrocoll 1:65–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bradford MM (1976) Anal Biochem 72:248–254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Singleton VL, Rossi JA (1965) Am J Enol Vitic 16:144–158

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nunan KJ, Davies C, Robinson SP, Fincher GB (2001) Planta 214:257–264. doi:10.1007/s004250100609

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hagerman AE, Austin PJ (1986) J Agric Food Chem 34:440–444. doi:10.1021/jf00069a015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Amrani Joutei K, Glories Y, Mercier M (1994) Vitis 33:133–138

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pérez-Magariño S, González-San José ML (2005) Eur Food Res Technol 220:597–606. doi:10.1007/s00217-004-1106-z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rosli HM, Civello PM (2004) Plant Physiol Biochem 42:823–831

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Doco T, Williams P, Pauly M, O’Neill MA, Pellerin P (2003) Carbohyd Polym 53:253–261. doi:10.1016/S0144-8617(03)00072-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Femenia A, Saí ES, Simal S, Rosselló C (1999) Eur Food Res Technol 209:272–276. doi:10.1007/s002170050492

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Prinzivalli C, Brambilla A, Maffi D, Lo Scalzo R, Torreggiani D (2006) Eur Food Res Technol 224:119–127. doi:10.1007/s00217-006-0298-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Nunan KJ, Sims CA, Bacic A, Robinson SP, Fincher GB (1997) Planta 203:93–100. doi:10.1007/s004250050169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Abu-Goukh AB, Bashir HA (2003) Food Chem 83:213–218. doi:10.1016/S0308-8146(03)00067-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Heredia A, Guillén R, Jiménez A, Fernándes-Bolaños J (1993) Z Lebensm -Unters Forsch 196:147–151. doi:10.1007/BF01185575

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Soh C, Ali Z, Lazan H (2006) Phytochem 67:242–254. doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2005.09.032

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hang YD, Woodams EE (2003) In: Book of abstract, IFT annual meeting, Dallas, p 39B

  28. Ali ZM, Chin L, Lazan H (2004) Plant Sci 167:317–327. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.03.030

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ortega-Regules A, Romero-Cascales I, Ros-García JM, López-Roca JM, Gómez-Plaza E (2006) Anal Chim Acta 563:26–32. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2005.12.024

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was made possible by the financial assistance from the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Project AGL2003-01957. Author A. Ortega-Regules is the holder of a fellowship from the Government of Mexico (CONACYT).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Tecnología de Alimentos, Nutrición y Bromatología, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Murcia, 30071, Murcia, Spain

    Ana Ortega-Regules, José María Ros-García, Ana Belén Bautista-Ortín, José María López-Roca & Encarna Gómez-Plaza

Authors
  1. Ana Ortega-Regules
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José María Ros-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Belén Bautista-Ortín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. José María López-Roca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Encarna Gómez-Plaza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Encarna Gómez-Plaza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ortega-Regules, A., Ros-García, J.M., Bautista-Ortín, A.B. et al. Differences in morphology and composition of skin and pulp cell walls from grapes (Vitis vinifera L.): technological implications. Eur Food Res Technol 227, 223–231 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-007-0714-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-007-0714-9

Keywords

  • Grape berry
  • Cell wall
  • Mesocarp
  • Exocarp
  • Skin
  • Pulp
  • Morphology
  • Winemaking technology